Fix control acceleration question

[metzgergva]

"Fix control acceleration" was used by me all times as it slowed down the repeat rate for example on elevator trim. I'm using a CH yoke. FS internal smallest trim step is 0.6° and by playing with the total degrees for trim tarvel, it was possible to adjust trim travel time within certain limits and meeting electrical trim specs on aircrafts.

Now since I'm on a newer computer and Win7, I see that it is basically impossible with the trim acceleration in Fs9 or FSX set to medium (the position always used) to get a single click movement. Switching Fix control acceleration on or off just does not have an influence anymore. Is it something eliminated by chance? And could it brought back into life?

[Pete Dowson]

"Fix control acceleration" was used by me all times as it slowed down the repeat rate for example on elevator trim.

Hmm. don't know how it did that. `Sounds impossible to me. Please read the description in the User guide. Especially this part:

The “fix” for this intercepts all controls, and changes the elapsed time check in FS before forwarding every different control, so that the time elapsed looks large enough. If it sees successive identical controls then it leaves them, so they can be accelerated as normal.

It doesn't change the time itself, it only changes a flag which FS might set.

I'm using a CH yoke. FS internal smallest trim step is 0.6° and by playing with the total degrees for trim tarvel, it was possible to adjust trim travel time within certain limits and meeting electrical trim specs on aircrafts.

For elevator trim adjustments of any user choice, just use the FSUIPC offset facilities. The setting of trim to any increment you like is actually the example used in the Buttons section of the User Guide for "Offset Increment/Decrement Controls". Look for the boxed section with that title.

Regards

Pete

[metzgergva]

Well than I need to look for that. Just giving the recomendation to hav "Fix control acceleration" set to ON helped me through the years when people were complaining about electrical trim responsiveness of "my" planes. Explaining them the proposed option might be more difficult, but I will check it out.

Thank you for your very quick response.

[Pete Dowson]

Well than I need to look for that. Just giving the recomendation to hav "Fix control acceleration" set to ON helped me through the years when people were complaining about electrical trim responsiveness of "my" planes.

Strange. i honestly don't know how that could have helped. All it did was stop the automatic FS repeat acceleration occurring when it shouldn't, as when other controls are occurring in between and the repeats were not genuine repeats. Maybe, in your aircraft, there are always other controls between every repeat of the trim? If so, why would that not also occur in Windows 7, or whatever? I've certainly not changed anything.

Maybe it isn't related specifically to Win7 (I don't see how it can be), but the speed of your newer computer? Maybe the sequence of controls going to FS is not the same because of that? Maybe you should switch on the FSUIPC event logging and see what is going on?

If you want to force it, you could, instead of using the FSUIPC offset method of trimming, assign two FS controls to the trim up and trim down actions -- the second one being something innocuous, that does nothing of any consequence. That should stop them accelerating. (Of course, assigning two controls will necessitate editing the INI file or providing macros, so your users are still not faced with something easy.

However, for real control of the exact trim action, you won't get better than actually increasing it or decreasing the actual value, and each user can select his own optimum one too, that way. And the offset inc/dec method can be done in the FSUIPC options. If you wanted to use Macros you could of course just supply a macro file -- for either method, inc/dec offsets or double control.

Regards

Pete

[metzgergva]

Thank you Pete for those hints. As a developer, I try to live with the standards that FS provides and your FSUIPC was considered as a standard for me. I try to avoid to use specific settings that the user of the aircraft don't have or would be complicated for them. On top all this all will cause much more support.

Nevertheless I will try the first option with the button assignment and see if that helps. Just by using your described example values I should get a much finer resolution (0.1° vs 0.6° based on a total +/-15° deflection - more just looks bad on the trim flap) and I can post that in the aircraft user manual if users have a problem with the trim control speed.

I belive the whole thing comes from internal cycle calculation in FS which with the new powerful computers just run faster. I can see that the single step did not change and on my slow laptop it is still ok but on the high speed PC the trim just runs too fast.

W'll see what is the best solution.

Edit: I have implemented the trim as per your instructions and it works now perfectly. I used 128/16383 as parameter to have a really nice running electrical trim, Advantage is it keeps the speed and does not accelerate further the longer you press. Great!

Thanks!